Decommissioning the Nimitz is a Huge Mistake..

[pxmcc]

but if you do it, will you have the 2nd baddest car on the planet (in a 10 way tie. granted, the Ford is a step up.) if so, fix the damn car..

otherwise, part it out and be done with it. letting it sit is silly. parts just rust and depreciate.

Originally Posted by ICU 812

Decomissionig the Nimitz: There is a cost/benafit analysis that they do, and it is pretty much buyilt in to the design and operational history.

On a much smaller but completely relevant scale . . .Our grand son has turned 16 with all that means.My 2001 Chevy Silverado ha 250,000 ,miles on it and has been parked outside for six years or so. It runs but it needs work . . .a lot of work. Some of it is cosmetic. /some of it is restorative (windows don't go up and down, heater/AC is out) and some of the work it needs is time related preventative such as replacing the belts,the head gasket and main seal and flushing/replacing all the fluids.

The least critical issues are b body work and a paint job, but the whole point of this post is that it all comes down to should we (can we) spend the several thousand dollars on refurbishing a 25 year old truck that has been driven hard( and is NOT a classic or rarity) just so this kid can have access to a vehicle?

At this point, several thousand could become many thousand dollars . . .we just don't know ow yet.

Aside from the difference in scale, its pretty much the same process of balancing pros and cons.

[Precious_b]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

Decomissionig the Nimitz: There is a cost/benafit analysis that they do, and it is pretty much buyilt in to the design and operational history.

On a much smaller but completely relevant scale . . .Our grand son has turned 16 with all that means.My 2001 Chevy Silverado ha 250,000 ,miles on it and has been parked outside for six years or so. It runs but it needs work . . .a lot of work. Some of it is cosmetic. /some of it is restorative (windows don't go up and down, heater/AC is out) and some of the work it needs is time related preventative such as replacing the belts,the head gasket and main seal and flushing/replacing all the fluids.

The least critical issues are b body work and a paint job, but the whole point of this post is that it all comes down to should we (can we) spend the several thousand dollars on refurbishing a 25 year old truck that has been driven hard( and is NOT a classic or rarity) just so this kid can have access to a vehicle?

At this point, several thousand could become many thousand dollars . . .we just don't know ow yet.

Aside from the difference in scale, its pretty much the same process of balancing pros and cons.

I like your example.
I had a 2500HD that same year that I liked driving as a work truck. Had alot of the same issues as yours. Company bought a new truck but wondered why I kept driving the old one. Well, for one, I know they'd stress and give me a whole lotta shit if I got one scratch on the new one. Was alot easier just to keep rolling in the old hoopty, problems and all. Took a couple of years (and them fighting the urge returning the new truck) but I finally changed over. And that old one found new life being gifted and the owner is taking care of a few things on it.

Sorry to digress. But I don't think the US will be giving this carrier to another country like they have with other ships in the past.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by pxmcc

but if you do it, will you have the 2nd baddest car on the planet (in a 10 way tie. granted, the Ford is a step up.) if so, fix the damn car..

otherwise, part it out and be done with it. letting it sit is silly. parts just rust and depreciate.

Nimitz will be scrapped eventually. like the Enterprise. it takes years because the first thing that has to happen is de-fueling the reactors which takes several years. then later the hull can be scrapped.



it also would take 24-36 months at least to refuel. Gordan Chang in his article neglects this fact. Nimitz's nuclear gas gauge is empty. it doesn't have enough reserve to be deployed for a standard 9 months patrol again let alone a possible extended operation if China attempts to occupy Taiwan.


of the 10 operational carriers not all are on active patrol. some let's say 2 are undergoing a major refit i.e. a nuclear refuel. others minor refits. the rest 2-3 ready but in port. so of the 10 now we could sortie 7-8 of them for deployment. that's still a significant numbers edge over China.



Chang's argument is readiness for a Taiwan conflict. the Nimitz won't matter. it's spent. so what does that really leave us?



if needed the US could sortie 6 nuclear and 6 nonnuclear assault carriers. China if they sortied all 3 main carriers and 3 of their assault carriers (they have 5 total) the US still has a 2 to 1 edge


US 12

China 6.



so Gordon Chang's conjecture is flawed and does not accurately account for the total carrier forces of the US that could be brought to bear compared to China.

[Precious_b]

Guess the above scenario is reason enough to be on good terms with your friends. Not threaten them if you don't get what you want.